In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.

In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:

Quote

Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise

Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then?

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,05:30

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

And have you verified all your thoughts on ID with JoeG? Because, he'll ignore you if you're wrong about ID or he'll stalk you for two years and beat you up.

Not to condemn or anything but the way it works out this is for real providing an explaining for how “intelligent cause” works that you are either a part of helping to make happen or on the sidelines jeering with what amounts to philosophical easy ways out of having to yourself have to present better cognitive theory, than what was so far presented in the other thread here:

For more on my reasons why I have to see it that way is this from the How a Theory Works to explain your philosophical dilemma that has you on the other side of science by expecting useful theory to meet an untested philosophical conclusion that best describes what a hypothesis is for (true or false statement that goes one way or another from an experiment):

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess. For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained. Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/csc....ons.phpThe theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained. The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation. The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not. The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”. Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other. As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable. For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument. The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”. When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory. As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”. This made for a useful debate as to what science is. But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine. Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record. One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”. Otherwise it is “useless”. There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory. But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place. For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause. We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause. When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together. In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories. This can make it appear that a new one is not needed. It will then be ignored. To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it. But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously. When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong. Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another. Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

You now need to have a better explanation for how “intelligent cause” works that does better with computer programmers and others who know useful science when they see it too.

The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too. Better that than not having the support of computer programmers on up to the greatest of scientists who would be impressed by something coming out of all this, after all. I'll next try to explain that part of it, but brings us to Kansas and Dover and is a many years long project I will do my best to sum up in a million words or less.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

This next generation Intelligence Generator (also on Planet Source Code) computer model is (as per Occam’s Razor) made to be as simple as possible to reduce all that is happening in a complex biological circuit of an intelligent living thing to what is most important to understand about the way self-learning intelligence works, in this case a compound eye insect. The program provides a precise and testable operational definition for “intelligence” where taking all sensors out of memory addressing demonstrates "protointelligence", while clicking out its Red Green Blue vision subsystems from both confidence and memory renders it completely “unintelligent” in which case it only expresses Brownian motion type random behavior. The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. Applying this model to biology shows advantages of a two lobed brain over a single lobe that would have to be much larger to control the same amount of sensory input. This model also provides insight into the origin of life, intelligence, and mechanisms that produces new species including human which was found to be systematically the primary result of good-guess chromosome speciation from fusion of two ancestral chromosomes which created our second largest. The code is useful for game engines and other applications that require virtual intelligence, is relatively well commented, has on-screen tool-tip-text, and 30 pages of referenced documentation.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong?

Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong.

Let's start small however. Describe ID in your own words.

Said the orca to the seal pup.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other. As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

What if all the other creationists disagree with your word terminology? I'll spot you "poof".

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.

In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:

Quote

Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise

Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then?

The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory. Important thing is to find the people who actually need such a theory and are willing to help verify that it is indeed good science, because that is not a one person job and trying to make it seem that way is politics not science.

In this case what now stands to be verified by others and already did great so far, looks exactly like this:

What is explained above either makes sense to all in that field in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that just because of something dug up in a conclusion that makes for a good semantics argument but ignores all the rest that is above it, that is already doing fine being fairly judged where it should be most useful and appreciated in reality if they did not like it too then the science theory part goes nowhere anywhere. At PNAS or Nature where the audience is expecting lab experiments that produce supernatural deities and other nonsense the issue is not an original computer model that does in fact allow the experimentation with what scientifically qualifies as “intelligent cause” at a place where there is a large volume of physics and other science related programs written in Visual Basic, where it fits right in with all the rest that’s there to for-real keep how-to experimenters busy on things that have never been tried before. That is what verifies the model and theory works for them too, and they sure don't mind the credit for being the birthplace of the theory that was supposed to have been impossible, that was actually long ago in embryonic stage right here with the Intelligence Generator:

I always included Kansas, where Kathy Martin has all long been having fun with science too with no need to worry about places like this forum. There is no longer great need for her to make an issue of it at a board of education public hearing. She only has to be kept informed and knows how well the theory is doing these days where it most matters, and I know she’s happy with how things are going (even though not even I can change where the scientific evidence leads).

To be religiously real (without going out of bounds of science) I made an illustration with famous artwork as a pointer:

From the “citizen” level the controversy is being quietly ended with the Theory of Intelligent Design winning, but not over Creationism or Creation Science that the above illustration is most properly for, which was a problem that got the Discovery Institute in what has been called a “turf-war” that made it unpopular with Creationists who need an honorable Adam and Eve established in science and Genesis friendliness or to them too it's just window dressing the Darwinian paradigm.

This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that. Just have to accept, that at least for some of us, this is very serious science where ones who get all shook up over it are no surprise...

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

There is that.

--------------"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen. And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard. Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast. Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result. But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have. It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen. And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard. Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast. Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result. But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have. It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.

Here's the thing. If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format.

There's nothing wrong with either of those. But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple. Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.

"We did x with y." "We used x process to modify the gene Y." etc.

Now, let's see if I can help. DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments).

1) The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.

5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process. Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that.

So in what sense is Joe right then?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Without getting too verbose, how is intelligent learning different from evolution?

That's a good question and another way to describe it is "evolution" and all that Charles Darwin explained is that things change over time and where some things are made gone they're gone. Might be insight to someone who didn't already know that, but it's not theory that predicts what this is for and makes one go Ah ha! and Eureka!

The theory is for systems biology and predicts a system architecture of a molecular cognitive system at work in cells, to account for their being such a tenacious self-learning survivor. From there it's connecting to origin of life on into String Theory, and other way on to cellular then human origins and intelligence all with the same simple core model where once you understand how it works you know why intelligence is something to respect because of its all controlling behavior and all else just something that happens because of the way it works.

Here's what it looks like when applied at the collective intelligence level in robots. Note the way they describe how "guess" and such is used to produce new knowledge between them:

So to an earlier good question from the other thread, yes it will clean your floors, if it wants to. There are ways of making want a certain thing, but make it too smart and too clean it might figure out how to end that problem by getting rid of the humans making all the messes in the first place.

You're probably safer with a non-intelligent AI with 2D math equation that covers the floor space and is programmed to stop for humans, as opposed to having to learn to do so by fighting with them enough times they leave you alone for a while. This model very seriously has a mind of its own, that has to itself want to dance or it's not going to, which is very bad where it gets sensory overwhelmed then stage fright has it running away.

This model ending up being normally unpredictable like this is one of the things that lets you know it's not Artificial Intelligence which is great at cleaning floors and dancing at the push of a button but it's not the real thing where there is very visibly a mind of its own that inherently tries to control all it can. This will not obey commands, unless it wants to. A buyer beware would certainly need to be included with that one.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering.

Also

Quote

But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that

Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm.

ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model.

Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.

The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen. And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard. Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast. Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result. But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have. It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.

Here's the thing. If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format.

There's nothing wrong with either of those. But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple. Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.

"We did x with y." "We used x process to modify the gene Y." etc.

Now, let's see if I can help. DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments).

1) The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.

5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process. Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).

The premise, as stated by the Discovery Institute and now on the "public record" as one sentence only, is in my signature line. All else you presented are rewordings that are irrelevant to discussion.

And it's not that I cannot easily enough write a paper like you are describing, the problem is it's a lot of theory and gets into what has been going in Dover and all over these days and all else I hate to even get into but is incomplete without. It keeps forever changing never looking quite right, end up frustrated and just need to get away from it or will just get worse with more work. But if you can fit all I have been saying and the rest of the theory in a journal length article then you or someone else can second coauthor it. My problem is I'm me, not you, and the theory needs source code exchange not lab result research paper. It's in a way a formality I am being dragged into because of some thinking my job too on top of all else that already publicly states Theory of Intelligent Design not allowed, that seriously makes me wonder whether a science journal paper is a waste of time to begin with right now. Model and theory is already here. And no science journal can change that fact. So I'm honestly not sure what purpose you expect the publishing of the news in top journal will even serve. It's too late for tribunal and don't need to show up for a journal inquisition, unless I want to, and at the moment I don't.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering.

Also

Quote

But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that

Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm.

ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model.

Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.

I'll remember to keep the sentences small. And all the other good advice. At the moment though I'm fighting exhaustion. My grammar then declines rapidly. But it seems like you and others know that I'm making sense, and can relax for a while.

The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why. But it's not like it's an impossible problem to solve. It's just more frustrating than you can imagine. At least the pdf shows where I'm currently at in that effort, to show some progress has been made. It's not like I don't try, that's for sure.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.??Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).

It's when there's one or more positive feedback loops of some sort that selection effects are apt to appear to have been directed, since a positive feedback loop has what amounts to a direction. (The phrase "arms race" is frequently used as an analogy to a type of positive feedback loop.)

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science. Here's my latest project:

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….

If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs. They are otherwise the same to me. But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program. It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory. But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.

You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

Quote

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

Wikipedia:

Quote

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.

There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

Quote

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.

Wikipedia:

Quote

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.

The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

Quote

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.

Wikipedia:

Quote

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2

The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

Quote

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Wikipedia:

Quote

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.

I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

Quote

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

Mark Twain:

Quote

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.

The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.

If so you better don't even think about it.Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.

BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors here and here. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science. Here's my latest project:

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….

If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs. They are otherwise the same to me. But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program. It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory. But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.

You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

Quote

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

Wikipedia:

Quote

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.

There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

Quote

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.

Wikipedia:

Quote

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.

The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

Quote

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.

Wikipedia:

Quote

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2

The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

Quote

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Wikipedia:

Quote

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.

I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

Quote

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

Mark Twain:

Quote

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.

What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong?

Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong.

Let's start small however. Describe ID in your own words.

After having in more detail studied the recent (he died in 1994) philosophical work of Karl Popper it became clear that it was being scientifically misused. In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny. You believe that a theory can be falsified as easily as a hypothesis, but when reality of how things go in science is considered even your best falsification fails.

Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

And on that, I simply follow normal scientific procedure in regard to how a theory (such as String or ID) can beforehand be premised then all are invited to write a theory to explain how that works. In this case "intelligent cause" must be explained, and what sums up to "Natural selection did it!" answers are not accepted.

Once you know how, it's possible to scientifically meet both requirements of the premise. And the phrase "natural selection" is such a scientific generalization that once the model is molecularly "developing" into new morphological designs comparisons to Darwinian theory sound like arm-chair philosophers (who of course never wrote one) trying to figure out what a scientific theory is, using philosophy. If you put a "hole" in the environment that some fall into and never get out of, then it's "natural selection" too. Before long pointing and parroting the same two generalizations at everything becomes annoying. Can then see why in this theory such attempts to better explain how intelligence works, are best ignored.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You are free to experiment with it too. But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

There are so many possible experiments for so many sciences your logic amounts to denial, but at least the rest of us are experimenting with the theory's models!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.

What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

[...]

The issue is not whether you referenced sources; it is whether you understood them. The evidence says that you don't understand them. I've already seen the item in your list that was also referenced in the Wikipedia article. As I noted, it does not support your original description.

Quote

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:

[...]

Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

Quote

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.

You have a remarkably obtuse way with words. The "confusion" is quite evidently that you haven't understood what your sources have to say about biological topics.

Quote

Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

The problem is not a lack of detail, the problem is a lack of understanding and accuracy.

Quote

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:

[...]

You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:

Quote

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

You were talking about the citric acid cycle. Offering a graphic of the reverse citric acid cycle is not relevant to a claim concerning the citric acid cycle.

Plus, you need to be more specific: what step in the process are you claiming involves something that is split in half to produce two identical molecules? Where is it? What is the name of the dimer you are talking about?

Quote

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.

Big whoop. Stuff existing that *could* be controlled is not an issue. Finding stuff that *requires* a "designer" of the sort who also happens to have setting universal constants in his toolkit is.

At least we have resolved which response strategy you would select. You picked option (1), the "Timecube" emulation option. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.

You are free to experiment with it too. But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

And you're a cdesign proponenstist who just happens to be a programmer. Colour me shocked.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.

If so you better don't even think about it.Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.

BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors here and here. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.

The how to write a science paper websites were already helpful. In my experience though, the definition of pompous became: Needing one to crawl to self-appointed journal authority with public policy to immediately reject such theory, while their theory is already well enough presented at Planet Source Code and more.

Giving into that does honestly set a bad example. If this is their politics then it’s maybe best to leave them behind, like they asked for. As it works out, scientists who most matter to the theory and I have no problem figuring out what it’s all about from what they find on Planet Source Code. Ones who degrade that programming resource are more likely an administrator type or have (anti)religious reasons for demanding I report to a tribunal all set to brush it off for them.

I would seriously rather stay focused on following the evidence where it leads, than get stuck having to explain where we have already been which is more of a job for a gifted scribe. These days in science papers they are given credit by becoming a coauthor but it is more or less the same thing as in ages past in the search for how we were created. And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion. Respecting the past this way, makes the theory very faith-friendly and useful there. And where the planet sizzles or has another ice-age that makes technology all gone it’s then only what religion can make sense of that easily carries on. Not that I become a Jesus it’s actually here more from the emerging legend of Kathy Martin who to spite their religious way of seeing things prevailed, with help from a science guy who focused on the science work while explaining important connections that parallel religion that keeps the search for our Creator going for at least a few more hundred years hopefully forever. Kathy is a Catholic, so where what she gave to her church for direction that kept it going to spite science change becomes legendary she eventually becomes a Saint. I’m happy just getting credit as her science guy who helped light the path that she herself took, that won reelection after scientists vowed to make sure she's made gone ASAP. In Islam one can achieve status as a Prophet behind Prophet Muhammad, and modern scribes there already know where the theory’s at too.

It might of course also be a big help to get something published in a major science journal, even though it’s now at most explaining what’s already here and I sure can’t afford the publishing fees so would have to claim poverty on that. It’s like one thing adds to another then before you know it the science journalists are useless, but maybe wondering what’s wrong with the heads of scientists who well know what’s going on but just hurl insults and give pompous speeches on their behalf instead of giving me/us real help. I still need to finish the OOL related Reverse Krebs Cycle illustration that needs molecules drawn to show how they split at the end of the cycle, and have to make a coacervate video and describe propulsion but can’t afford a microscope like that or am in a field that studies its ionics. I’m simply so overwhelmed by what I need to finish for the theory that dumping all over me for being able to afford only time for that, looks plain scientifically dysfunctional.

Thankfully all is still well on Planet Source Code, where their creator sent best wishes to let me know I’m welcome to submit more like that, anytime. They only care that the code is all there, like it was. And I’m sure they don’t like being treated like a toilet either. The new found scientific empowerment that makes even the greatest of science journals powerless against us is just one more of those things that gives others who are normally left out of the fun the thrill of having experienced real power to themselves change science. The preferable outcome is here is that the ivory tower has to crawl to Planet Source Code for news of what’s new in science. And with all considered there’s nothing unscientific or unfair about it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

"And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about this being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion."

In other words, it is scientifically irresponsible to kick science just because it's well received in religion too.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do. The method thinks in terms of "agents". Intelligence is somehow detected. For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me. And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method. William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting. Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter. After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold. Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.

Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events. Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Good idea!

The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding. From what I can see I am talking about news and events that are now like ancient history. So maybe this might help. It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Good idea!

The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding. From what I can see I am talking about news and events that are now like ancient history. So maybe this might help. It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:

I first have to say that I had to walk to the store for coffee to keep me awake another 12 hours, so be glad I'm still here for you. And as always, please don't mind the typos..

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,05:09)

Gary,You said:

Quote

The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.

Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.

I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work. But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

My ID experience long ago started at the KCFS forum where Jack Krebs taught me everything he knew about debating against the theory. I myself said ID is not science it is a religion which at the time it more or less still was. I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either. Along with Mike Gene who loved to find all the most recent recent info on metabolic pathways it was still an excellent learning experience to have been in on.

Since I did not see a Theory of Intelligent Design being possible I instead worked on original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum. There was also added inspiration by email from Kathy Martin who instead of being negative and hating the idea was encouraging my search for an easy kitchen/classroom experiment to help explain what was later found to be called "self-assembly". We in turn ended up helping to introduce the concept of "self-assembly" to science teaching, by it being published in a National Science Teachers Association journal. It might not be as good as the delivering of a science-worthy Theory of Intelligent Design, but was still not bad for amateurs. At least there was that to show, as something good that came out of the rubble of the public hearing in Kansas that all fell apart on them. They proved to be right about it being more constructive to call in both sides of the issue to discuss the scientific merit of such a theory. Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science. Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life. Through emergence we express what created us, which we are systematically in the image/likeness of. Theory can now read so much like Genesis I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do. The method thinks in terms of "agents". Intelligence is somehow detected. For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me. And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method. William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting. Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter. After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold. Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.

Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events. Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.

"The rest of us" did not avoid Dembski's math. You obviously either did not read or did not understand the first two links if you think that they indicate Dembski is on the verge of any discovery.

There is already a concept that broadly applies concerning cognitive models: the Church-Turing thesis. And the final link I provided fits right into that framework with identification of evolved effective methods.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.

So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.

Quote

But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?

Quote

I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.

So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

Quote

Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.

You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!

Quote

Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.

Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.

Quote

I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,08:56

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification

Edited by Robin on Nov. 02 2012,10:02

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification

It's just a more caffienated version of the usual ID spiel - a mash-up of sciency-sounding jargon, which reduces to "looks designed to me".

The "I can model it with a computer program, therefore ID" argument is, well, a little special, in much the same way that Joe's "cake recipe" argument was.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.

So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.

Quote

But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?

Quote

I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.

So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

Quote

Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.

You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!

Quote

Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.

Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.

Quote

I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.

To quickly sum up what is most important to myself and all others including JoeG (who I at least know is catching up to Kathy Martin's record amount of ridicule) here's more culture change for your speakers too:

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

You can say what you want about the science in the theory not being a big deal scientifically anymore. I already knew that. Real scientific change that once we once could only dream about, is no longer something hoped for that might happen, it already did.

I know what it's like to suffer for a theory like this. And I knew that Kathy and others (who I did know well enough to be able to relate to their novel scientific problem) got into more than they thought and were shocked by the "scientists" boycotting the hearing. Then came the gnawing question of why they just threw mud at it then ran. But as it now stands, the computer model and theory that is at Planet Source Code is example of what happens when one doesn't run away like that. The experience has even made the Kansas Public Schools ahead of the curve in self-assembly and more, that makes for model school material. Not even Jack Krebs minds that happening, especially since there would not have been the KCFS forum without him and deserves credit for the good that ultimately came from his hard work too. He also needed professor Joe Meert and others who helped keep it academic to stay in the battle after the hearing via the KCFS forum. So with all said, none on the ground in Kansas wanted to be abandoned by scientists. And in hindsight what Kathy and others in the "minority" were trying to describe that needed some patience to fully understand was not a good idea to abandon either. Unless of course you don't mind doing what we want while Jack just gets nervous from all the IDeas I could not help but gave the other side.

Creationists in Kansas and elsewhere are likely a part of the reason the Genesis-friendly science that you consider no big deal scientifically is now understood as being no big deal anymore. That's how the creationist strategy here works. What works for them in the classroom is rightly made a non-issue by making sure it gets taught. They themselves get to introduce it too or explain to teacher, not someone also representing the Atheist movement or other motivator to be one up on their competition in science that is not even in the classroom yet. That's the kind of progress I see happening in Creationism country that I know, the kind that you can do nothing to stop.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification

It's just a more caffienated version of the usual ID spiel - a mash-up of sciency-sounding jargon, which reduces to "looks designed to me".

The "I can model it with a computer program, therefore ID" argument is, well, a little special, in much the same way that Joe's "cake recipe" argument was.

Thanks John. I kind of got that gist in general. I'm just saying that I have no ability to engage his ID arguments in specific because I'm exhausted by the time I get through any of them. Take this sentence:

Quote

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

It's your "theory". You tell us, if you can.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Thanks John. I kind of got that gist in general. I'm just saying that I have no ability to engage his ID arguments in specific because I'm exhausted by the time I get through any of them. Take this sentence:

Quote

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.

You did not study the theory, correct?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.

Hey, at least you quoted the whole sentence instead of taking the juiciest part to munch on all by itself. In my book, that's progress too, even where it looks like a mess to you.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more, Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.

Since you directed your post to me Gary, I'm going to try and parse it and see if I can respond.

Let's see:

Quote

If you only want to engage what I said [and] are worn out [by] philosophical arguments[,] instead of [while engaging] science [scientific arguments,] then it's best that you do not [n]ever expect that from me [to address only science] anyway.

Hmm...assuming I got the gist of what you were going for, rewritten this would be:

Quote

If you are only interested in engaging me if I focus on scientific arguments because you do not understand my philosophical arguments, you likely won't enjoy discussing what I say because I won't focus only on science.

Ehh...that might be close. Who knows?

See Gary, that's the whole point. My complaint has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with syntax. I don't know what you are actually trying to communicate. As I stated, I can get the gist, but getting the gist does not actually allow for direct, linear communication. I can't get into the details of what you are trying to convey so I can't appreciate your concepts on any deeper levels.

So Gary, I'm happy that you think you presenting some philosophical conceptual framework or whatever, but since I can't quite parse the nitty-gritty of said philosophical argument, let alone how it applies in any way to science, I can't exactly ask any questions about your concept or analyze it, let alone use it.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

Yes please do, if you wish, operationally define "intelligently designed and how it can be different from "designed by nature". I'm sure your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing makes a clear destinction. It would be just fine if you use your definitions and simply answer yes/no to the questions above.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.

Hey, at least you quoted the whole sentence instead of taking the juiciest part to munch on all by itself. In my book, that's progress too, even where it looks like a mess to you.

Well, like I said, I tried.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

So have have an ID advocate asking us to define ID?

Burden of something falls on the someone?

I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy. It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity. Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.

Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.

Quote

It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.

Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.

Quote

Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more, Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

That's certainly better, but still leaves me at a loss. Evolutionary algorithms don't have anything to do with explaining rabbits in the Cambrian strata. That's a nitpick I guess given your overall point, so I'll go back to my syntax issue. What does, "even where confirmed by finding more" mean? Do you mean, that if we found one lone rabbit such a find would simply be taken as a mistake, but finding many rabbits (thus confirming the first find) would not be seen as a mistake? Just curious.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Yeah Gary. What Robin said. Lie down, get some sleep and then come back and write a paragraph or two instead of a wall of text.

I agree that's good advice, but I'm still on standby for possible a call from work to fix a machine and still have plenty of coffee left after buying a new can this morning. I'm more worried about the tired to giddiness Bung-holio stage, that goes way past typos and long read. That's when you realize that I do not mix well with philosophy, and maybe best to not get me started in that direction.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The hockey ice of science is open to anyone, Gary, you're welcome to get on it and give it a try like everyone else. But you've not even bothered to learn the rules. You're just sitting at home playing tiddlywinks, crying that everyone else is playing the game wrong and they should just give you the goddamned Stanley Cup.

You're playing an entirely different game, Gary. It's called "Creationist Blogger" and neither scientists nor the NHL gives a shit.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.

Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.

Quote

It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.

Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.

Quote

Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.

We're still making good progress. They were good questions to ask. I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples. That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw. Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'll try to think of another way to explain it. But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not. Same here. But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.

Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.

Quote

It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.

Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.

Quote

Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.

We're still making good progress. They were good questions to ask. I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples. That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw. Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'll try to think of another way to explain it. But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not. Same here. But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line. In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

We're still making good progress. They were good questions to ask. I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples. That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw. Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'll try to think of another way to explain it. But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not. Same here. But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

So, is that a "pantheism" answer, or a "miracles happen all the time" answer, or a "God is a tinkerer" answer, or a "front-loading" answer? Or an "invisible holograms" answer?

Or an "I'm being deliberately obtuse because my theory is as insubstantial as a bird fart" answer?

The way what science works out, Gary? Where's the equation that points to the designer? You know, like:

E=mc2+YHWH

???

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not. Same here. But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line. In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so. It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums. Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to. I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it. In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing. Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all. In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable. Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not. Same here. But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line. In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Yes this is going to be epic! And saying "no music" is only asking for more. But that's my radio and broadcasting school experience talking, of course.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so. It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums. Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to. I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it. In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing. Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all. In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable. Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:

Quote

Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".

The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.

As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't

You are saying that you need a scientist to help you figure out what is at Planet Source Code and for download at theoryofid.blogspot.com?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so. It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.

Does someone have an eraser? I thought he mentioned time travel and crossed it off, but on re-reading the sentence I see I was just a little too eager for the win.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so. It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums. Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to. I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it. In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing. Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all. In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable. Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:

Quote

Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".

The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.

As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...

Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.

That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level science.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Quoted from the link because this is even better shit - I got over half me boxes checked now, suckers ...

Quote

I just made a MAJOR rewrite that made it many times better! [CHECK]

The intro more pro-ID to match the added science being more a score for ID'ers.

It's still short, 3 paragraphs, but contains a lot more important science words [CHECK]. Previous concepts fit right in to strengthen it [CHECK].

Never packed so much science in such a small space before. Now has hyperlinks like crazy [CHECK] to NCBI and all over to expand out to enough science to learn to be a scientist knowing. Have to link to blog for those, too many to relink here. But here's the unlinked text at this point which might be easier to read after clicking on links makes it all multicolored [CHECK].

Note - the 'MAJOR rewrite' occurs approximately 80 minutes after the first version. Some funny stuff.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

We're still making good progress. They were good questions to ask. I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples. That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw. Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'll try to think of another way to explain it. But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not. Same here. But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

So, is that a "pantheism" answer, or a "miracles happen all the time" answer, or a "God is a tinkerer" answer, or a "front-loading" answer? Or an "invisible holograms" answer?

Or an "I'm being deliberately obtuse because my theory is as insubstantial as a bird fart" answer?

The way what science works out, Gary? Where's the equation that points to the designer? You know, like:

E=mc2+YHWH

???

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

<snip>

Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image. It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image. But being a coder you'd know all about that.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

My life is a finite period of time, Gary. I'm not going to study a "theory" which can't be cogently summarised by its own author. Sure, it may be a groundbreaking, paradigm-shattering piece of work, but if you're not prepared to explain or discuss, it's indistinguishable from the ravings of a loony.

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)

Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.

I quoted the entire statement you referenced. If that constitutes "cherry-picking", you shouldn't have linked to it. Do you have a summary you're prepared to stand by?

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)

That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level science.

Yes, I know, you are Teh Super Genuis and we are not worthy. Which K-12 schools are teaching your "theory" in science class? Do tell.

For the nth and likely last time, because I've got more productive things to do: what is your theory? "Go study it" is not an answer.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

<snip>

Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image. It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image. But being a coder you'd know all about that.

Yes, and after clicking to the reply to see how it looks outside the preview window the full resolution png file was not there anymore. It came back though, after posting the jpg. Now I'm stuck with two, but at least none should have a problem finding the math/logic that was demanded to be presented here.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I've never seen a Theory Of Everything which includes the word "nose" before.

Hopefully that indicates the terminology used is not over your head. I kept it simple, because I could.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.

What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

[...]

The issue is not whether you referenced sources; it is whether you understood them. The evidence says that you don't understand them. I've already seen the item in your list that was also referenced in the Wikipedia article. As I noted, it does not support your original description.

Quote

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:

[...]

Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

Quote

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.

You have a remarkably obtuse way with words. The "confusion" is quite evidently that you haven't understood what your sources have to say about biological topics.

Quote

Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

The problem is not a lack of detail, the problem is a lack of understanding and accuracy.

Quote

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:

[...]

You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:

Quote

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

You were talking about the citric acid cycle. Offering a graphic of the reverse citric acid cycle is not relevant to a claim concerning the citric acid cycle.

Plus, you need to be more specific: what step in the process are you claiming involves something that is split in half to produce two identical molecules? Where is it? What is the name of the dimer you are talking about?

Quote

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.

Big whoop. Stuff existing that *could* be controlled is not an issue. Finding stuff that *requires* a "designer" of the sort who also happens to have setting universal constants in his toolkit is.

At least we have resolved which response strategy you would select. You picked option (1), the "Timecube" emulation option. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.

Gary, you seem to have dropped a thread.

You used the citric acid cycle as an example verifying your concepts, except that what you described isn't the citric acid cycle.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 03 2012,05:13

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. I like you.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Look, GG, just because you label something "intelligent" doesn't make it so.

Let's start at the bottom:

The "Behaviour of Matter" box.

By "matter" I'm guessing you mean organic and/or inorganic molecules? In a cell? Outside a cell/organism? Or matter that has been ingested?

What does "Address memory for next motor action" mean?

What "memory"? What, exactly is it? Where do we find it? How big is it? How do we measure it?

What is doing the addressing?

What "motor"? You mean the behaviour of atoms and molecules that's already incorporated into modern chemistry and physics?

This is all just 21st-century steam-punk window-dressing for elan vital isn't it, Gary?

(okay i have to admit, this chew toy is fresh)

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Look, GG, just because you label something "intelligent" doesn't make it so.

Let's start at the bottom:

The "Behaviour of Matter" box.

By "matter" I'm guessing you mean organic and/or inorganic molecules? In a cell? Outside a cell/organism? Or matter that has been ingested?

What does "Address memory for next motor action" mean?

What "memory"? What, exactly is it? Where do we find it? How big is it? How do we measure it?

What is doing the addressing?

What "motor"? You mean the behaviour of atoms and molecules that's already incorporated into modern chemistry and physics?

This is all just 21st-century steam-punk window-dressing for elan vital isn't it, Gary?

(okay i have to admit, this chew toy is fresh)

Judging by the silicon in his diagram I think he's trying to make one of these:

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. I like you.

And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. I like you.

And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.

I'd like to see a Grand Unification of this theory with Booby Byers' "death by Satan, car crashes and the planet leaving its orbit" findings. At last, a research program for ID...

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.- FTK

Things like that make me wistful for the days of Peak Intelligent Design.

"My boy, did I ever tell you about the golden age? When the tard was as bountiful as the ocean, it sprung from the ground, it fell from the sky, it poured out of every nook and cranny, and it felt like it'd never run out. The disco tute pretended to fund science, and Doug Axe pretended to do it...code monkeys claimed to be better biologists than biologists...every week, a new calculation or Capitalized Term...You couldn't swing a cat without hitting a Luskin or a Cordova...ah, those were the days...."

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. I like you.

And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.

I'd like to see a Grand Unification of this theory with Booby Byers' "death by Satan, car crashes and the planet leaving its orbit" findings. At last, a research program for ID...

You gotta get whatsisname's "invisible holograms" in there, too. An ID mashup, as it were.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

Neither Boston nor Montserrat are on Planet Source Code. Still, POTW.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

In general awe is directed at objects considered to be more powerful than the subject, such as the breaking of huge waves on the base of a rocky cliff, the thundering roar of a massive waterfall. The Great Pyramid of Giza, the Grand Canyon, or the vastness of open space in the cosmos are all places or concepts which would typically inspire awe. (Wikipedia)

Witnessing an exceptionally great mind in action is a privilege not bestowed on everyone. I stand in awe.

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

I did not realize I still had one floating around from way back in 2009. But I think you might have found a special one. Let me check..

Yes! It's the ID-free Origin Of Intelligent Life blog, for Christmas! that I made for Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who hate ID. The title “Origin Of Intelligent Life” was a good clue it is not the “Theory of Intelligent Design”.

With this illustration there too it's clearly visually showing what I am explaining. At most missing the symbiosis part about the forward cycle gaining energy by undoing the assembly work of the reverse Krebs that can then assemble more:

Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

No versions mention citric acid cycle. I make sure (Jack) Krebs is there, like he should be. But since you do not believe that it is important to first study the theory you are supposed to be fairly judging it is no wonder I'm stuck in another henpecking semantics argument and this even though there was also a link to view in Google-Viewer at the Theory of ID download address:

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)

Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

I must say, that at least your timing goes perfect with the link to the movie trailer for the new Christmas movie. Here I am trying to explain Heiserman, Trebub, and others known all over intelligence related sciences. It’s very basic material, not PhD level stuff. It’s already a damn shame in the first place that someone promoting themselves as an expert in how intelligence works does not even know modern day basics kids know about too these days because of resources like BEAM (Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, Mechanics) where David Heiserman and others are found. And considering you are supposed to know all about what’s going on, not knowing who I am does not score any points in the science arena either. And resorting to intellectual snobbery was a dumb idea. But picking the ID-free chewtoy was in my opinion brilliant!

Under your scientific leadership, the kids of the world were at least immediately in danger of being scientifically bored to death. I do though take the years old topics that linger in the forums as more evidence that the ID controversy actually ended around 2009. With the theory working out scientifically there was no need for political protest, had science work instead. Kathy had to make sure teachers in her district knew about the self-assembly demonstration via copy-machine, while kept things interesting at the KCFS forum for more original ideas for science teachers, that came from the wreckage of the hearing that went bad for them. It’s hard not to be impressed. And where students soon giggle because you can’t figure out what they already know, it’s a compliment to whoever could have them understanding all that by high school, and the students too of course.

At least (quality over quantity) Jack has no need to envy all the traffic this forum received over the years. Or worry all that much about ones most ahead right now in understanding the theory include Kansan creationists that he was on a mission to scientifically educate, somehow. Having the whole “Theory of Intelligent Design” pop out of the incubator is now just indication of unimaginable success. Not that the ID-free “Origin of Intelligent Life” wasn’t also a great idea and novel Christmas gift, for a science forum that normally gets nothing for Christmas at all. I'm at least thrilled to see that you had no problem finding it either.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

this is all about surfing? that actually makes more sense than it being about science....

You are now in the middle of a culture war that is older than the Discovery Institute and expected to go on forever, and in any hands the Theory of Intelligent Design is one of those things that accidentally lights fuses of one kind or another, wherever it goes. Already had enough wreckage to clean up. Some here seriously need immediate music appreciation lessons, real bad.

In the Sheryl Crow Soak Up The Sun song/video the main message is to LIGHTEN UP!!! Especially when I'm still the king of me, you have a fancy ride, but baby I'm the one who has the key.

In this more intense one, what do you see happening in the (commercial free) Muse - Uprising video?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

this is all about surfing? that actually makes more sense than it being about science....

You are now in the middle of a culture war that is older than the Discovery Institute and expected to go on forever,

True enough. What we are decidedly *not* in the middle of though, is a scientific debate.

What we are most decidedly *not* in the middle of with you, specifically, is a scientific controversy or even discussion. You're not doing science, your word salad has no meaning, and no one is taking you seriously.

You don't know what a theory is, you can't convey a coherent thought about seemingly anything, and you don't know the Citric Acid Cycle from the fucking spin cycle. Yet, you think you're about to overturn 150 years of real biological research in favor of.. what, exactly? Goddunnit? Consciousnessdunnit?

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

If my attempt at translating Gaulinese into English is close, I think he's just basically saying "everything is designed".

He just doesn't have the balls/wit/language skills to come right out and say it.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

For that example we must begin with the Kansas Board Of Education public hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design as was also reported by PBS after the Discovery Institute followed official procedure to make a change in a few sentences, that did not change much but it's a "foot in the door" all took very seriously. Their paperwork was all there, so the next step is to have an open to the public (I think they all are public anyway) hearing to explain it to everyone, then decision is later made whether to accept or reject the proposed changes.

The "majority" side of board wanted to not take it seriously. The "minority" side much included Kathy. She and others saw no harm in having the DI come to Kansas to personally answer all the questions the people she was elected to serve had for them and "scientists" who said something else about the theory at the center of the controversy. The question was whether the theory needing state standards changes had any scientific merit/usefulness in the Kansas Public School science classrooms. It was obvious that the theory was controversial but the way US education laws and ethics are concerned the taxpayer (in class represented by students teachers are paid to serve) must have the final say in whether it is science or not.

In this rare case "scientists" are legally and ethically way over the line by trying to circumvent that process. Same goes for the Discovery Institute that gets equal time to answer questions from the public.

The boycott by "scientists" left the public hearing unresolved. The KCFS forum became where the public issue went after that to hopefully be resolved through there instead. It took years to get this far. In hindsight Kathy and others who expected a "fair-hearing" for the theory can easily accept that it could not be decided right there. We all needed patience to resolve this one, and by my later giving the theory a fair hearing at the KCFS forum, regardless of it making Jack and others nervous by giving the other side so many ideas and such that way.

It's still as bad now as it was way back then to try deciding this one for Kansas public school system. Get back for a message the Metallica - King Nothing song, from signals you're trying to interfering. I make sure that I don't expect public school taxpayers to treat me any differently. I just put what I have on the proverbial table to be fairly judged, then hope it's liked. I stayed out of trouble that way.

What "scientists" think of the theory, is here genuinely irrelevant. And there is nothing wrong with that, science likes it messy anyway. So the way the science game is played with this one, how well the theory is working out scientifically is up to the public school taxpayers to decide. Neither student or teacher needs a special board hearing or permission to bring to class something they can find on Planet Source Code these days. Don't need a journal tribunal just students and teachers who like it, and teachers do. One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it. The theory has a little bit of everything, but not so much that it's beyond a good K-12 education level. That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

For that example we must begin with the Kansas Board Of Education public hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design as was also reported by PBS after the Discovery Institute followed official procedure to make a change in a few sentences, that did not change much but it's a "foot in the door" all took very seriously.

BZZZTT!

Wrong!

Please try again. That is not the "theory working out scientifically" is it?

Science is not run from Kansas.

If you don't have any scientific progress then the theory (of ID) is hardly working out scientifically is it? And your claim is therefore wrong.

Quote

Same goes for the Discovery Institute that gets equal time to answer questions from the public.

Going to play that game are we? Well, again, it's irrelevant You made a specific claim, that the theory of ID is working out scientifically. And when asked for evidence for that claim you pull out the Kansas school system?

Try and focus Gary.

Quote

What "scientists" think of the theory, is here genuinely irrelevant.

And yet here you are. And it's funny how you put "scientists" in scare quotes as when I asked you for scientific evidence for your scientific claim you come up with culture war bullshit.

So all that's genuinely irrelevant are your answers to my questions.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2012,13:34

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

I had no problem noticing that you have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" and are mucking up the playing field spitting out sour grapes all over it. You did not even figure out that I put "scientists" in quotes that scare you (like I did board "minority" and "majority") because that is the given name for the team that you think you're helping, by fumbling.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I had no problem noticing that you have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" and are mucking up the playing field spitting out sour grapes all over it. You did not even figure out that I put "scientists" in quotes that scare you (like I did board "minority" and "majority") because that is the given name for the team that you think you're helping, by fumbling.

Yeah well I had no problem noticingthat YOU have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of Truck-Nutz andare mucking up the playing field spitting out sour balls all over it. You did not even figure out that I already laughed my ass off at this thread before you made this comment so that should preclude me from laughing it off again but the fact that I just did explains your "intelligent cause"

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.

You are now talking about separation of church and state, that was successfully used in Dover. What got the Discovery Institute there, was not having a theory with experiments/demonstrations that explain a mechanism for Intelligent Cause.

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory. By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.

Perhaps Gary has a future as an editor at Social Text.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory. By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory. By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.

Oh, and the Dover, PA ruling by Judge Jones was only against the actions of their school board (that read a statement against another theory in classrooms and had creationism books in school library) not against the "Theory of Intelligent Design". As long as the teachers stick to the science that is in the theory it is legal to teach in any US public school district, including Dover's. Some states even enacted bills to protect teachers from being harassed for (within bounds of science) teaching it. Hence this makes sense: Jimmy Eat World - My Best Theory

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I don't have a plan. I have no idea what you're talking about and nobody else does either. We've had lots of creationists here, but you're the first where we literally can't make out what you're trying to communicate.

If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.

I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.

btw, you know he kicked the bucket, right?

Who exactly?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problemwith a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herdwhere they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and beingsafer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat differenta lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specieidentity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belongis not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helpsexplain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cowswho know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moosebecause they cannot see the difference either.

but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101, genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

This is the best you got? After all those thousands of words in the OP? Notice the careful use of punctuation in the first paragraph:

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

I don't have a plan. I have no idea what you're talking about and nobody else does either. We've had lots of creationists here, but you're the first where we literally can't make out what you're trying to communicate.

I didn't intend to suggest that you had some diabolical plan or anything. You mentioned a possible strategy against the theory, that I needed to explain by going over the most likely outcome of trying it for real. Proposing the strategy made you the (for sake of discussion) opponent against mine.

My being the first creationist you can't make out (what I'm trying to communicate) is probably because I'm not your usual creationist. In fact, at one time I would have been insulted to be called that. But after having been at the same time complimented (not out to fleece the flock) I accepted the new stereotype that fate had given me.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problemwith a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herdwhere they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and beingsafer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat differenta lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specieidentity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belongis not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helpsexplain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cowswho know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moosebecause they cannot see the difference either.

but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101, genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

It sounds like you are saying I need to make the punch-lines show up better, and use more expression. Is this sentence better?

Cows who know a moose when they see one, will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose, because they cannot see the difference either!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase “natural selection” is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify. This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve). It is this way able to explain what is most important to know about how our brain works, cellular intelligence with flagella and other systems requiring cognitive control, living genomes where each replication cycle is analogous to one thought cycle over billion years of intelligently working on the design problem becoming human (and all the other living-things) presents, to creation by nonrandom behavior of matter that we are a conscious expression of. The entire universe (and all in it) is emergent from behavior of matter obeying nonrandom physical laws (laws of physics) therefore all “features” of the universe and of living things are here best explained by starting with this premise that requires explaining how “intelligent cause” works.

Clear as mud.

Gary, even you can't have failed to notice that on every forum you've posted your 'theory' (and there have been a lot) you encounter the same complaint - nobody understands what on Earth you are talking about. Your 'theory' as presented is gibberish. And the fact you persist in advertising your Planet Source Code award tells me that you are labouring under the delusion that this award in some way validates the 40 pages of rambling you call your 'theory'. It doesn't.

For how many more years and on how many more forums are you going to post this stuff, Gary, before all this sinks in?

The phrase “natural selection” is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify. This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve). It is this way able to explain what is most important to know about how our brain works, cellular intelligence with flagella and other systems requiring cognitive control, living genomes where each replication cycle is analogous to one thought cycle over billion years of intelligently working on the design problem becoming human (and all the other living-things) presents, to creation by nonrandom behavior of matter that we are a conscious expression of. The entire universe (and all in it) is emergent from behavior of matter obeying nonrandom physical laws (laws of physics) therefore all “features” of the universe and of living things are here best explained by starting with this premise that requires explaining how “intelligent cause” works.

Clear as mud.

Gary, even you can't have failed to notice that on every forum you've posted your 'theory' (and there have been a lot) you encounter the same complaint - nobody understands what on Earth you are talking about. Your 'theory' as presented is gibberish. And the fact you persist in advertising your Planet Source Code award tells me that you are labouring under the delusion that this award in some way validates the 40 pages of rambling you call your 'theory'. It doesn't.

For how many more years and on how many more forums are you going to post this stuff, Gary, before all this sinks in?

Reading GaGa's word salad I'm reminded of the old joke:

A horny young woman decides she wants to get laid by a real he-man. She goes to a biker bar and picks up the biggest, baddest Harley dude in the house. They get back to her place and she goes to change into a nightie. When she comes back the biker has his jeans off and he's sporting this miniscule 2" erection. "Who in the world do you expect to satisfy with that tiny thing?" cried the disappointed damsel.

The biker replied "......me."

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

Gary, I guess the ID-friendly journal Bio-Complexity will appreciate your work. Here are its editorial policies:

Quote

Purpose

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Scope

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.). Among the topics of interest are: the origin or characterization of complex biological sequences, structures, forms, functions and processes; pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life; molecular or morphologic phylogenies and phylogenetic methods; new molecular or morphologic data including paleontological data; cladistics and systematics; biomimetic or engineering analyses of biological systems; in vitro and laboratory evolution; evolutionary simulation and computational evolution. Theoretical or mathematical treatments of complexity or information with clear relevance to the journal's aims are also welcome.

Although philosophical works will not be included as Research Articles, the subject matter does call for occasional articles of a more reflective nature. These will typically be invited contributions from authors whose opinions are judged to be of broad interest, which will be published as Critical Reviews. BIO-Complexity will consider for publication only work that adheres to widely accepted modes of scientific investigation and inference.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Gary, I guess the ID-friendly journal Bio-Complexity will appreciate your work. Here are its editorial policies:

Quote

Purpose

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Scope

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.). Among the topics of interest are: the origin or characterization of complex biological sequences, structures, forms, functions and processes; pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life; molecular or morphologic phylogenies and phylogenetic methods; new molecular or morphologic data including paleontological data; cladistics and systematics; biomimetic or engineering analyses of biological systems; in vitro and laboratory evolution; evolutionary simulation and computational evolution. Theoretical or mathematical treatments of complexity or information with clear relevance to the journal's aims are also welcome.

Although philosophical works will not be included as Research Articles, the subject matter does call for occasional articles of a more reflective nature. These will typically be invited contributions from authors whose opinions are judged to be of broad interest, which will be published as Critical Reviews. BIO-Complexity will consider for publication only work that adheres to widely accepted modes of scientific investigation and inference.

I talked to Matti. The theory is way too long for an article or paper. Like Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and all the rest, it needs to be published in book form. That's when I started on the most recent text (TheoryOfID.doc) which is now 50+ pages long. After adding in the remaining illustrations that it needs (including a new fwd/reverse Krebs to show molecular mirroring) the shortest possible length is around 70 pages.

BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":

My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.

Charles Darwin had it easy. He only had to explain a cursory observation that indicated living things changed over time. In my case I needed a cognitive model to explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works at emergent levels into (at least) the molecular. The computer model part alone required many thousands of hours of experimentation and coding, on top of all else that had to (for the first time) be figured out then explained in a way that it can next be experimented with by others (i.e. online at Planet Source Code too).

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

Hmm, more irrelevant gibberish but no measurements/calculations. What a surprise. Not.

Oh well, don't feel too bad gary, none of the other IDiots can or will do it either.

Chalk up yet another day where "ID" has been shown to be vacuous.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27